Agenda of Planning and Regulatory Committee

N-logotype-black-wide Planning and Regulatory Committee

3 October 2017

Page No.

1. Apologies

Nil

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

3. Interests

3.1 Updates to the Interests Register

3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda

4. Public Forum

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 27 July 2017 9 - 14

Document number M2772

Recommendation

That the Committee

Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee, held on 27 July 2017, as a true and correct record.

6. Status Report - Planning and Regulatory Committee - 3 October 2017 15 - 18

Document number R8447

Recommendation

That the Committee/Subcommittee

Receives the Status Report Planning and Regulatory Committee 3 October 2017 (R8447) and its attachment (A1736802).

Regulatory

7. Parking and Vehicle Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules 19 - 38

Document number R7548

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Parking and Vehicle Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules (R7548) ; and its attachment (A1837990): and

Approves amendments detailed in report R7548 to the following schedules of the Bylaw No 207, Parking and Vehicle control (2011):

- Schedule 4: Special Parking Areas

- Schedule 8: Time Limited Parking Areas

- Schedule 9: No Stopping

- Schedule 13: Stop Signs

8. Resource Management (and Special Housing Area) charges and delegations 39 - 62

Document number R8331

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Resource Management (and Special Housing Area) charges and delegations (R8331) and its attachments (A1826805) and (A1825487).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves the draft resource consent charges, planning document charges, monitoring charges and Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act charges contained in the Statement of Proposal in Attachment 1 of report R8331 (A1826805) for public consultation and notification using the Special Consultative Procedure as set out in the Local Government Act 2002;

Approves the delegation of powers contained in Attachment 2 of report R8331 (A1825487) to the Chief Executive under the Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017.

9. Changes arising from the Building (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 63 - 86

Document number R8457

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Changes arising from the Building (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 (R8457) and its attachments (A1823395 and A1823406); and

Confirms that the identification of priority buildings, required under the amendment Act, be conducted in 2018; and

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves the amended Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy, to remove the specific references to earthquake prone buildings, noting that a full review of the policy will take place in 2018

Environment

10. Nelson Plan - Timelines to Draft Release and Notification 87 - 94

Document number R8275

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Nelson Plan - Timelines to Draft Release and Notification (R8275) and its attachments (A1821033 and A1821035); and

Approves the proposed timelines to draft release and notification of the Nelson Plan; and

Approves that consequential changes to the Progressive Implementation Programme for freshwater management will be made and the Ministry for the Environment informed.

The meeting will adjourn for a short workshop prior to considering Item 11. Draft Environment Activity Management Plan 2018-2028.

11. Draft Environment Activity Management Plan 2018-28 95 - 140

Document number R8276

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Draft Environment Activity Management Plan 2018-28 (R8276) and its attachment (A1787292).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves the Draft Environment Activity Management Plan 2018-2028 (A1787292) as the version to inform the Long Term Plan (LTP) 2018-2028 noting the decisions regarding resourcing will be subject to the LTP process.

Policy and Planning

12. Nelson Plan - Draft Regional Policy Statement 141 - 157

Document number R7279

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Nelson Plan - Draft Regional Policy Statement (R7279) and its attachments (A1743457, A1829598, and A1743456); and

Agrees that the Nelson Plan Draft Regional Policy Statement will incorporate the changes identified in report R7279 and its attachment (A1829598); and

Agrees that further changes/refinement will be made to the Draft Regional Policy Statement throughout 2018 relating to how issues, objectives, policies, and methods are framed to ensure integration with the rest of the Nelson Plan, to recognise any further national policy or environmental standard changes, and to reflect the City vision once it has been adopted by Council; and

Agrees the Nelson Plan Draft Regional Policy Statement can remain as a working draft until it is updated and incorporated into the wider Nelson Plan for further community feedback in mid 2018.

Public Excluded Business

13. Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation

That the Committee

Excludes the public from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

Item	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Particular interests protected (where applicable)
1	Re-contracting Regulatory Services from 1 July 2018	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Re-contracting Regulatory Services from 1 July 2018

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7

The withholding of the information is necessary:

· Section 7(2)(i)

To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

14. Re-admittance of the public

Recommendation

That the Committee

Re-admits the public to the meeting.

Minutes of a meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson

On Thursday 27 July 2017, commencing at 9.00am

Present: Her Worship the Mayor R Reese (Co-Chairperson), Councillor B McGurk (Co-Chairperson), Councillors L Acland, I Barker, B Dahlberg, K Fulton, and S Walker, and Ms G Paine

In Attendance: Councillor P Matheson, Group Manager Strategy and Environment (C Barton), Group Manager Community Services (C Ward), Senior Strategic Adviser (N McDonald), Manager Consents and Compliance (M Bishop), Manager Building (M Brown), Team Leader Regulatory (B Edwards), Senior Infrastructure Planner (L Gibellini), Manager Environment (M Heale), Team Leader Science and Environment (J Martin), Environmental Programmes Adviser (S Moore-Lavo), Manager Communications (P Shattock), Strategy and Environment Analyst (B Wayman), Team Leader Building Consents (C Wood), Administration Adviser (L Canton), and Youth Councillors B Rumsey and J Morgan

Apologies: Nil

1. Apologies

There were no apologies.

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

There was no change to the order of business.

3. Interests

There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.

4. Public Forum

There was no public forum.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 25 May 2017

Document number M2616, agenda pages 7 - 12 refer.

Resolved PR/2017/030

That the Committee

Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee, held on 25 May 2017, as a true and correct record.

Her Worship the Mayor/McGurk Carried

6. Status Report - Planning and Regulatory Committee - 27 July 2017

Document number R8080, agenda pages 13 - 16 refer.

Resolved PR/2017/031

That the Committee

Receives the Status Report Planning and Regulatory Committee 27 July 2017 (R8080) and its attachment (A1736802).

Walker/Paine Carried

7. Co-Chairperson's Report

Document number R8070, agenda pages 17 - 20 refer.

Her Worship the Mayor, Rachel Reese presented the report.

Resolved PR/2017/032

That the Committee

Receives the Co-Chairperson's Report (R8070); and

Refers to Council all powers of the Planning and Regulatory Committee relating to the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust applications for further funding from the provision set aside in the Annual Plan 2017/18.

Her Worship the Mayor/Barker Carried

8. Co-Chairperson's Report

Document number R8111, agenda pages 21 - 22 refer.

Co-chairperson Councillor McGurk presented the report.

Resolved PR/2017/033

That the Committee

Receives the Co-Chairperson's Report (R8111) and notes the contents.

Her Worship the Mayor/McGurk Carried

9. Strategy and Environment Report for 1 April - 30 June 2017

Document number R7917, agenda pages 23 - 91 refer.

Manager Environment, Matt Heale, Team Leader Regulatory, Brent Edwards, Manager Consents and Compliance, Mandy Bishop, and Team Leader Building Consents, Chris Wood, presented the report. They provided updates and together with Senior Infrastructure Planner, Lisa Gibellini, answered questions.

Attendance: Mrs Paine left the meeting from 9.36am to 9.37am.

Resolved PR/2017/034

That the Committee

Receives the report Strategy and Environment Report for 1 April - 30 June 2017 (R7917) and its attachments (A1774079, A1786088, A1784621, A1791943, A1777407 and A1791962).

Fulton/Barker Carried

Resolved PR/2017/035

That the Committee

Approves the Nelson City Council Dog Control Activity Report 2016-2017 in Attachment 1 to Report R7917 (A1786088); and

Approves the Nelson District Licensing Committee Annual Report 2016-2017 in Attachment 2 to Report R7917 (A1784621); and

Accepts the Nelson Plan Overview of Workshop Recommendations and Direction in Attachment 5 to Report R7917 (A 1777407).

Barker/Fulton Carried

10. Voice Nelson - Warrant of Fitness for Rental Housing

Document number R8063, agenda pages 92 - 94 refer.

Manager Building, Martin Brown, and Team Leader Building Consents, Chris Wood, presented the report.

Resolved PR/2017/036

That the Committee

Receives the report Voice Nelson - Warrant of Fitness for Rental Housing (R8063).

Her Worship the Mayor/Dahlberg Carried

Resolved PR/2017/037

That the Committee

Requests a report be brought to the Committee in June 2018 providing any update on Central Government or Local Government adoption of a Warrant of Fitness Scheme for Rental Housing.

Walker/Barker Carried

11. Draft Terms of Reference for the Co-ordination Group for the Waimea Inlet

Document number R7743, agenda pages 95 - 105 refer.

Environmental Programmes Adviser, Susan Moore-Lavo, presented the report. She advised that Tasman District Council had approved the terms of reference but had overlooked adding a revision date.

The committee expressed a preference to amend the terms of reference in line with the officer recommendation to include a three yearly revision clause.

Her Worship the Mayor noted that Councillor Dahlberg had expressed an interest in being Council’s representative on the Co-ordination Group.

Resolved PR/2017/038

That the Committee

Receives the report Draft Terms of Reference for the Co-ordination Group for the Waimea Inlet (R7743) and its attachment (A1779297).

Her Worship the Mayor/Walker Carried

Recommendation to Council PR/2017/039

That the Council

Agrees to adopt the terms of reference (A1779297) for the Co-ordination Group for the Waimea Inlet with an amendment to add a revision clause; and

Appoints Councillor Dahlberg as Nelson City Council’s representative on the Co-ordination Group for the Waimea Inlet.

Her Worship the Mayor/Barker Carried

12. Proposal for Top of the South Conservation Partnership: Memorandum of Understanding

Document number R7765, agenda pages 106 - 119 refer.

Environmental Programmes Adviser, Susan Moore-Lavo, presented the report and provided updates.

Resolved PR/2017/040

That the Committee

Receives the report Proposal for Top of the South Conservation Partnership: Memorandum of Understanding (R7765) and its attachment (A1777693).

McGurk/Her Worship the Mayor Carried

Recommendation to Council PR/2017/041

That the Council

Approves that Nelson City Council signs the Memorandum of Understanding (A1777693) between partners in the Kotahitanga mō te Taio Alliance; and that Her Worship the Mayor be delegated the authority to sign on Council’s behalf.

McGurk/Her Worship the Mayor Carried

Attendance: Councillor Acland left the meeting at 9.50am.

13. NPS-UDC Quarterly Monitoring Report March 2017

Document number R7967, agenda pages 120 - 138 refer.

Strategy and Environment Analyst, Brylee Wayman presented the report.

Resolved PR/2017/042

That the Committee

Receives the report NPS-UDC Quarterly Monitoring Report March 2017 (R7967) and its attachment (A1779576)

Her Worship the Mayor/Dahlberg Carried

There being no further business the meeting ended at 9.56am.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Planning and Regulatory Committee

3 October 2017

REPORT R7548

Parking and Vehicle Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To adopt alterations to the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw (2011), No. 207, resulting from minor safety and parking improvements, roading improvements carried out as part of the capital works programme and from the completion of new subdivisions.

2. Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Parking and Vehicle Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules (R7548) ; and its attachment (A1837990): and

Approves amendments detailed in report R7548 to the following schedules of the Bylaw No 207, Parking and Vehicle control (2011):

- Schedule 4: Special Parking Areas

- Schedule 8: Time Limited Parking Areas

- Schedule 9: No Stopping

- Schedule 13: Stop Signs

3. Background

3.1 The Parking and Traffic Control Bylaw 2011 allows for the Committee, by resolution, to add or delete items to the Schedules. To ensure that the Bylaw is enforceable it is important to ensure that the Schedules are updated on a regular basis. The bylaw schedules require updating since the last update in February 2017.

3.2 Minor alterations and additions are proposed to Schedules 4, 8, 9 and 13 of the bylaw to allow for parking and safety improvements.

4. Discussion

4.1 Schedule 4 : Special Parking Areas

In September 2017, Council resolved under the Nelson Freedom Camping Bylaw (report R8282) to approve restricted freedom camping in the following carpark areas (Schedule 2 of the bylaw). The bylaw comes into effect on 1 December 2017.

- Buxton Carpark (Maximum of 23 self-contained vehicles);

- Montgomery Carpark (Maximum of 25 self-contained vehicles);

- Wakatu Carpark (Maximum of 20 self-contained vehicles);

- Wakapuaka Reserve Carpark (Maximum of 3 self-contained vehicles);

- Maitai Cricket Ground Carpark (Maximum of 2 self-contained vehicles);

- Queen Elizabeth II Drive Gardens (Self-contained vehicles in any available defined car parking areas);

- Trafalgar Park: Haven Foreshore (Kinzett Terrace Carpark) (Maximum 4 self-contained vehicles in northern Kinzett Tce area);

- Isel Park: Main Road Stoke Carpark (Maximum of 3 self-contained vehicles in any available defined car parking areas);

These locations will be signposted before 1 December 2017 and blue lines painted to indicate the designated area to park within.

4.2 Schedule 8: Time Restricted Parking Areas

4.2.1 Polstead Road

Operators of the convenience dairy and fish and chip shop have requested P30 parking outside their businesses as shown in attachment 1.1. Time restricted parking is common outside other convenience stores across the city. Currently there are some cars parked all day outside the Polstead Road shops. Adjoining property owners were consulted and no objections was received. Officers support this request.

4.2.2 Pascoe Street

Council contractor EIL and customers using the Dog Pound have requested a P30 park outside the entry to the pound as shown in attachment 1.2. Currently the area is used by cars and trucks all day and night. Restricting all night truck parking in the area will also improve sight lines for vehicles exiting the pound. Officers support this request.

4.2.3 Tahunanui Drive

A new convenience store has been constructed on Tahunanui Drive. Resource consent requirements specify two parking bays have a 10 minute parking restriction at the frontage as shown in attachment 1.3. Time restricted parking is already in place outside convenience stores across the city including Tahunanui and this and is consistent with that.

4.3 Schedule 9: No Stopping

4.3.1 Saxton Stadium Carpark

Safety concerns have highlighted inadequate line marking at a pedestrian crossing within the Saxton Stadium carpark area. Due to the immediate safety concerns and the busy winter sport season changes have been made as per attachment 1.4 and require retrospective approval.

4.3.2 Tamaki Street cul-de-sac

Residents report being unable to safely enter or exit their driveways and rubbish trucks have experienced difficulty turning in the area. Growing numbers of recreational walkers using the Tamaki Street steps have contributed to congestion. When letters requesting feedback were sent to residents there was a strong response supporting this as well as requesting an extension of exiting No Stopping lines near the intersection of Orakei Street. Residents report parking adjacent to the hill crest had resulted in several “near misses” and anticipated preventing parking further up Tamaki Street would worsen that problem. It is proposed to mark No Stopping lines as shown in attachment 1.5.

4.3.3 Avon Terrace

Residents of this narrow one way terrace report being unable to enter or exit their driveways at times when cars are parked in the section shown in attachment 1.6. Private walls have been damaged in the past due to the narrowness of the lane and if cars were parked in the marked section tests have shown a fire engine would not be able to negotiate the road. Adjoining property owners were consulted and no objections was received. Officers support this request.

4.3.4 Rotoiti Street cul-de-sac

Residents and rubbish contractors report difficulty turning in this cul-de-sac due to some long term parking in the turning head. Installation of no stopping lines are requested as shown in attachment 1.7 and are consistent with other markings in small cul-de-sac streets. Adjoining property owners were consulted. One property owner contacted Council with questions regarding the approval process but no formal objection was lodged and no other objections received.

4.3.5 Putaitai Street left turn lane

Reinstatement of the right hand turn out of Putaitai Street onto Main Road Stoke for all traffic may result in some queuing in the right turn lane. To ensure left hand turners can exit Putaitai Street efficiently removal of two carparks is required as shown in attachment 1.8.

4.2.6 Rutherford Street

Council would normally rely on the Road Rules for parking restrictions in the vicinity of intersections. However in a recent resource consent hearing the Commissioner noted there are situations where, historically this has not been the case and parking restrictions close to intersections exist. The intersection of Bronte St/Waimea Rd/Rutherford St is a complex intersection and the Commissioner requests that the extension of the existing parking restrictions, by 15m southwards, (as shown in attachment 1.9) should be included in the proposed consent conditions. The resource consent applicant is the only directly affected party.

4.2.7 Main Road Stoke

Council officers have received repeated concerns from staff and patients of the Stoke Medical Centre and neighbouring residents citing difficulty exiting the facility carpark and private driveways due to vehicles parking too close to the driveways obscuring sight lines. The NZ road rules prohibit drivers from parking vehicles closer than 1metre from a vehicle entrance. There is some existing No Stopping marked in the area but it appears inadequate and is inconsistent with marking across the street at the Nelson Nursing Practice (number 469) which extends across driveway entrances. It is proposed to extend the No Stopping lines as shown in attachment 1.10. This does not result in any loss of legal parking.

4.2.8 Rutherford Street at Anzac Park

Construction of the pedestrian refuge on Rutherford Street at Anzac Park has necessitated removal of 4 metered 120minute car parking spaces due to installation of associated kerb build-outs and visibility requirements. No Stopping lines have been extended by 23m as shown in attachment 1.11 and require retrospective approval.

4.2.9 Wakefield Quay

Construction of a new dwelling at 333 Wakefield Quay gained approval at resource consent stage to create a vehicle crossing and off street (garage) parking at this address. Road rules prohibit parking across a vehicle entrance which necessitated removal of existing marked car parking at the frontages as shown in attachment 1.12

4.2.10 Beccles Lane

Changed land use at Beccles Lane including creation of a storage facility on previously vacant land has created a demand for a turning head in the lane. The turning head has always existed as road and road reserve but has been informally used as a carpark. The adjacent land use change now necessitates the formal line-mark to enable turning within the cul-de-sac. It is proposed to mark this as shown in attachment 1.13

4.3 Schedule 13: Stop signs

4.3.1 Atawhai Drive and Malvern Avenue

Safety concerns have been raised regarding potential conflict at this complex intersection shown in attachment 1.14 The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and police have been consulted and support changing the current Give Way sign on Atawhai Drive to a Compulsory Stop.

5. Options

5.1 There are limited alternative options for the items presented in this report as the majority are procedural updates to the bylaw required for safety and efficient traffic movement.

Option 1: Adopt Schedule changes as attached
Advantages	Changes to schedules are designed to improve safety and efficiency.
Option 2: Do not adopt Schedule changes as attached
Risks and Disadvantages	· Failure to approve changes could result in unsafe and inefficient use of the roading network. · Failure to update schedules will open enforcement to challenge.

Margaret Parfitt

Team Leader Roading and Solid Waste

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1837990 Combined attachment showing aerial views of proposed ammendments to schedules ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The report recommendation meets current and future needs of communities in contributing to safe use of the roading and parking network in the City.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The content and recommendation of this report is consistent with Council’s Community Outcomes – “Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs”. In particular that we have good quality, affordable and effective infrastructure and transport networks. This report is directly aligned to the requirements of the Parking Policy, the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw and with Council’s strategic direction through the Regional Land Transport Strategy.

3. Risk

To ensure that the Bylaw is enforceable it is important to ensure that the Schedules are updated on a regular basis. Failure to update schedules will open enforcement to challenge.

4. Financial impact

Costs are within allocated annual budgets for road maintenance or capital projects.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance. Subdivision development requirements are dictated by the Land Development Manual. Other than sub-divisions nearby business or residents which could be affected have been consulted.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No consultation with Māori has been undertaken

7. Delegations

Amendments to schedules of the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw and the Parking Policy fall within the delegated authority of the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Planning and Regulatory Committee

3 October 2017

REPORT R8331

Resource Management (and Special Housing Area) charges and delegations

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To seek Council approval of the draft charges for resource consent activities, Resource Management Act (RMA) planning documents and applications under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act (HASHA) for public consultation and notification using the Special Consultative Procedure (section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002). The Statement of Proposal is attached to this report (Attachment 1)

1.2 To seek Council approval to delegate powers to the Chief Executive under the Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 (RLAA) to consider new applications and exemptions (details are contained in Attachment 2).

2. Summary

2.1 New processes under the RMA come into effect from 18 October 2017. The current charges schedule and delegations need to be amended to include these processes.

2.2 Other charges have been reviewed and changes proposed where required to better reflect staff time to process applications and to ensure cost recovery goals can be met.

3. Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Resource Management (and Special Housing Area) charges and delegations (R8331) and its attachments (A1826805) and (A1825487).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves the delegation of powers contained in Attachment 2 of report R8331 (A1825487) to the Chief Executive under the Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017.

4. Background

4.1 The Consents and Compliance Business Unit is responsible for a variety of functions that have an element of cost recovery. Current charges have been in place since 1 July 2016. Some charges are set by statute while other statutes give local authorities the power to set charges. This report considers charges for the following which are not prescribed by statute:

• Resource Consents: processing, monitoring and enforcing, administration;

• Resource Management Act planning documents; and

· Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas (HASHA): resource consent for qualifying areas.

4.2 Section 101(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and Section 36AAA of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) require that charges for regulatory functions are to be cost-effective with those gaining the benefit from the regulatory service paying a reasonable cost for that service.

4.3 Changes to the Resource Management Act under the Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 (RLAA) introduce new processes. These processes are the fast track consenting process and the permitted boundary, marginal or temporary activity.

4.4 RLAA changes take effect from 18 October 2017. It is necessary for the Council to delegate functions under RLAA to the Chief Executive who would then delegate these functions to the appropriate staff level.

4.5 The National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry will, on 1 May 2018, introduce the ability for some permitted activity monitoring costs to be recovered. Other charges have been reviewed and adjusted where needed to ensure the charges meet the fair and reasonable resource consent activity costs.

4.6 For the 2016/17 financial year resource consent charges recovered 68% of the costs. The year before it was 59% and for 2014/15 46% of costs were recovered. The current financial policy is to recover 40-60% of total costs. This policy is to be reviewed in the Long Term Plan process.

4.7 The main factors influencing the level of cost recovery are the number and complexity of resource consent applications. Consent numbers increased from 391 in 2014/15 to 459 in 2015/16 and 469 in 2016/17.

5. Discussion

RLAA

5.1 The new processes are:

· A fast track consenting process – for non-notified controlled activities only (excluding subdivisions), applications to be processed in ten working days instead of 20 working days;

· A permitted boundary activity – for minor breaches of district land use rules (excluding subdivisions) relating to internal boundaries where the neighbouring owners having provided written approval; and

· Marginal or temporary rule non-compliance – for activities where the breach is technical in nature only and the effects are no different to the effects of the activity had it complied.

5.2 Applicants can only apply for the fast track and the permitted boundary activity. The Council may use its discretion for the marginal or temporary activities. The boundary activity and marginal or temporary activity are exempt from needing a resource consent. The Council must issue an notice for the permitted activities.

5.3 The fast track process will be similar to our existing simple decision process and it is proposed to include this in the $500 initial charge category. Additional charges or a refund will apply dependent on staff time required to process the application.

5.4 The boundary activity requires planners to: undertake a check to ensure no other rules are breached (and therefore trips it into the normal resource consent process); to issue a notice within ten working days describing the activity, the site and attaches plans signed by the neighbouring owners; and keep records of the process so it can be provided for Land Information Memorandum applications etc.

5.5 A set charge of $300 is proposed to cover the estimated time of two hours to undertake the permitted activity process. No additional charges or refunds apply. It is considered that this process should not result in a range of times needed to produce the notice.

Monitoring

5.6 Consents that require monitoring currently get charged $100 as part of their resource consent processing invoice. This amount is meant to cover the first hour of monitoring with additional monitoring charges invoiced at a later date. This initial charge does not cover the actual cost of one-off or initial monitoring costs and feedback from consent holders indicates they would rather have the initial charge reflect the more likely final cost than have multiple invoices. It is proposed to increase the initial monitoring charge to $150 to better reflect the final cost for those consents that only require a one-off check.

5.7 Permitted activity monitoring cost recovery is also explicitly referred to in the charges schedule to recover these costs at the staff hourly rate when legislation enables this charge to be recovered.

Other proposed changes

5.8 The staff hourly rate has been reviewed and it is proposed to increase it from $148 an hour to $150 an hour including GST. This reflects the CPI increase of 1.7%.

5.9 In comparison with other councils Tasman and Marlborough charge $150 an hour, New Plymouth is at $176, Dunedin charges $117 for a graduate, $149 for a planner and $165 for senior staff and Palmerston North has eight categories for staff ranging from $150 to $220.

5.10 It is proposed to remove the gravel extraction, replacement permits and swing mooring activities from the $500 initial charge category. This means the initial charge required will be $1,300. Gravel extractions generally take more time to process than the $500 initial charge covers and better align with the $1,300 charge.

5.11 Swing mooring applications will now require more assessment time as the priority areas identified in the Navigation Safety Bylaw for swing moorings are full. The replacement permit description is redundant as these are either new consents or are transfer of permits.

5.12 The Urban Design Panel charges have been updated in the schedule to include that the applicant meets the costs of the panel under the Special Housing Area Act. Currently the deed agreement between the Council and the applicant specifies the Panel costs are to be met by the applicant so the schedule has been updated to reflect this.

5.13 The costs associated with an objection hearing are identified as being met by the applicant where the applicant requests independent commissioner(s).

Factors influencing the level of charges

5.14 It is consent numbers and type of consents received that largely influence the level of income generated. The number of applications received is not a factor that is under the direct control of the Council and is difficult to predict from one year to the next. While the Nelson Resource Management Plan sets out when resource consent is required, the developer decides to either make a proposal comply or apply for consent.

5.15 Proposed changes within the Nelson Plan will potentially alter the level and type of consents applied for. Legislative changes will also alter this level. The Special Housing Areas applications are likely to continue to result in an increase of resource consent applications prior to September 2019 when HASHA is repealed.

5.16 Charges for various resource consent applications can be fixed (no refund or additional charge is applied) or are based on an hourly rate with an initial deposit made at the time of application. Most Councils fix the more constant certification-type processes. Hourly rate based charges tend to occur for applications that can range dependent on the nature and scale of the activity. Fixing more fees has a more predictable level of income but can mean some applicants pay much more or less than the actual costs.

5.17 RLAA introduces a power for regulations to be made requiring a fixed charge for processing applications. This could potentially require Councils to set a capped charge for a wide range of application types that will have cost recovery implications. It is recommended to continue to use time-based charging for applications that have variability in nature and scale and to fix costs for application types that have a predictable process. This recommendation better meets the fairness and reasonable test contained in section 36AAA of the RMA.

Delegations

5.18 In order for Council officers to process changes introduced by RLAA in a timely way the powers under the RLAA need to be delegated to the Chief Executive.

6. Options

6.1 The Council can choose to delegate powers to the Chief Executive under RLAA or can decline to do so, in which case all processing and decision making for applications made under these provisions will need to occur at the Council level. The potential delay with Council approving new RLAA processes will likely affect compliance with statutory timeframes and increase costs to the applicant.

6.2 Charges should be set to ensure they are not a barrier to growth and development while recognising the applicant or licence holder will receive the majority of the benefit in holding such a document. There are four options:

Option 1: Amendments to current charges (this is the preferred option)
Advantages	· Actual costs are more easily recovered with small increases and changes · Charges better align with nearby and similar sized Councils · Provides greater flexibility to change the level of cost recovery set under the new LTP · Consistent level of charging for similar consent types
Risks and Disadvantages	· Customers are not happy with the increased cost
Option 2: Status quo
Advantages	· Easy to administer · Achieves 40-60% cost recovery as set under the current LTP · Consistent level of charging for similar consent types · Allows for certainty until the impacts of changes to the RMA and Nelson Plan are known
Risks and Disadvantages	· Actual costs may not be fully recovered leading to larger changes later on · May not enable any changes to the cost recovery set under the new LTP
Option 3: Varied hourly rate for different staff levels
Advantages	· Reflects the different levels of expertise
Risks and Disadvantages	· More time consuming to administer · Adds more complexity to set charges to achieve cost recovery · Inconsistent level of charging for similar applications depending on the level of staff processing it
Option 4: Capping a greater range of charges
Advantages	· Certainty for the applicant · Easy to administer · No time required to review costs that are queried and to follow up bad debts
Risks and Disadvantages	· May not reasonably reflect the actual costs associated with the process · Difficult to set the charge for application types that vary significantly in complexity

6.3 Currently there are 13 different fixed or capped fees for a variety of document executions, certifications or processes that have a relatively certain amount of staff time required to process these applications. Option 4 is not recommended until the impact of changes to the RMA and the Nelson Plan is known.

6.4 Option 3 will require further investigation to determine the appropriate hourly rate for various staff and whether this impacts on current processes and team structure. Current processes involve staff at all levels to administer, process and review each decision. Option 3 is not recommended until this proves to be fair to the applicant who has no option in selecting who processes their consent.

6.5 The status quo, option 2, is not recommended as new processes are being introduced that existing charges do not specifically cover. Small changes are proposed to existing charges to ensure they better reflect the actual costs and are clear for the applicant.

6.6 Option 1 is the preferred option to capture new processes and update existing charges to better reflect actual costs. The proposed staff hourly rate is aligned with or less than other Councils.

7. Conclusion

7.1 New processes taking effect from 18 October 2017 need to be captured in the charging schedule. A special consultative procedure is required by RLAA and the RMA.

7.2 Other adjustments to charges are proposed to better reflect the level of staff time involved in the process and to clarify existing provisions.

7.3 Delegations under RLAA from Council to the Chief Executive enable the most effective and efficient processing of consents and exemptions to occur.

Mandy Bishop

Manager Consents and Compliance

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1826805 - Statement of Proposal - charges under RMA and HASHA ⇩

Attachment 2: A1825487 - Proposed delegations under RLAA ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The proposed charges aim to ensure the performance of regulatory functions are cost-effective for households and businesses by ensuring the reasonable costs are charged to those gaining the benefit of these services.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The proposed charges will better align with the Long Term Plan cost recovery goals while not providing a barrier for growth as identified in Nelson 2060 (goal seven: our economy thrives and contributes to a vibrant and sustainable Nelson).

3. Risk

The proposed charges will better achieve the cost recovery goals ensuring those who benefit the most pay the reasonable cost of that service. Changing the charges in a different way may lead to higher costs for customers or higher costs for the general rate payer.

4. Financial impact

The proposed changes are consistent with legislation and better enable actual costs to be met through charges to the consent holder receiving the benefit from that consent. Otherwise the general rate payer meets these costs. No increased staffing will result from the recommended changes.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance because the changes are only likely to generate a low level of financial impact on the community and the Council. History has also shown there is no widespread interest in this matter and decisions can be amended should reviews warrant this. Consultation will occur in the form of a Special Consultative Procedure however as required by the RMA and Local Government Act 2002.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

There has been no consultation with Māori regarding this recommendation

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the responsibility for considering resource management and other regulatory processes. The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the power to make a recommendation to Council on this matter.

Planning and Regulatory Committee

3 October 2017

REPORT R8457

Changes arising from the Building (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider the requirements of the Building (Earthquake Prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016.

1.2 To consider the changes required to Councils current Earthquake Prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2006.

2. Summary

2.1 This report will outline the key changes required as a result of the enactment of the Building (Earthquake Prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016.

3. Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Changes arising from the Building (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 (R8457) and its attachments (A1823395 and A1823406); and

Confirms that the identification of priority buildings, required under the amendment Act, be conducted in 2018; and

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

4. Background

4.1 The Building (Earthquake Prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 commenced on 1 July 2017. This Amendment Act requires action to be completed by the Territorial Authority in the key following areas:

4.1.1 Councils must review the buildings in their jurisdiction and identify any “potentially earthquake prone” and any “priority buildings”, as required and defined in sections 133AE, 133AF and 133AG of the Amendment Act.

4.1.2 Identification must be completed within ten years for any potentially earthquake prone building and five years for priority buildings as Nelson is located in an area of medium seismic risk.

4.1.3 The Territorial Authority must use the special consultative procedure under Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 to identify certain priority buildings under Section 133AF of the Amendment Act.

5. Discussion

5.1 As the Territorial Authority must fulfil the requirements of both the Building (Earthquake Prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 and the Building Act 2004 for the Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy, the following is proposed.

Current Earthquake Prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy

5.2 Under the Building Act 2004 Transitional provisions Schedule 1AA all existing Territorial Authority Earthquake-prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policies (required under section 131 of the Building Act 2004) must as soon as is reasonably practicable, after the commencement date, be amended or replaced to remove references to earthquake-prone buildings.

5.3 Under the Building Act 2004 Transitional provisions Schedule 1AA the special consultative procedure, in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002, does not apply unless the amendment materially affects the policy.

5.4 This report recommends removal of all references to earthquake-prone buildings (as Attachment 1) from the current policy to meet the requirements of Schedule 1AA.

Priority Buildings

5.5 The Building (Earthquake Prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 requires action from the Territorial Authority in relation to identification of priority buildings.

5.6 Priority building categories are defined as:

5.6.1 Hospital buildings likely to be needed in an emergency, buildings likely to be used as emergency shelters or centres, buildings for emergency response services, educational buildings regularly occupied by at least 20 people or more (such as registered schools, child care centre, private training establishment or tertiary institution under Education Act 1989) and;

5.6.2 Buildings where unreinforced masonry may fall onto thoroughfares, public roads or footpaths which have sufficient vehicle or pedestrian traffic to warrant prioritising for remediation; and

5.6.3 Buildings identified by the Territorial Authority which meet the criteria for potentially earthquake prone and may impede a transport route of strategic importance in terms of emergency response if the buildings were to collapse.

5.7 The Territorial Authority have not specifically identified any Priority buildings at this stage under the new legislation.

5.8 Under the prior policy approximately 50% (1000 of likely total of 2000) potentially earthquake prone buildings have been identified. There is confidence, noting we have already identified a significant number of the unreinforced masonry buildings in the city, that those identified include many buildings which fit the new Priority buildings categories.

5.9 The Amendment Act requires that the Territorial Authority use the special consultative procedure to establish the priority buildings which fall under the unreinforced masonry category as described in 5.6.2 and buildings on routes of strategic importance described in 5.6.3.

5.10 All priority buildings must be identified within five years i.e. by 30 June 2022. The proposed timeframe to undertake the initial identification of those buildings requiring special consultative procedure, is around April 2018.

5.11 Consultation under a special consultative procedure will be commenced in May 2018.

Revised Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy

5.12 Notwithstanding the initial work to remove earthquake prone references, the Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy requires a review and an amendment to include ‘affected buildings’.

5.13 To review and amend the policy the Building Act 2004 requires a special consultative procedure under Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002. The intention will be to undertake this at the same time as the priority buildings process commencing in May 2018.

6. Options

6.1 As the Territorial Authority is bound by the legislation the work must be undertaken. The main options are around phasing and the strategy to complete this in an efficient manner.

Option 1: Undertake works in line with the recommendations of this report
Advantages	· Completes the initial alignment for the current Earthquake Prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy, by removing references to earthquake prone · Sets up a prompt response to the priority buildings requirement of the Building (Earthquake Prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 · Combines the two requirements for special consultative procedure into one process to be commenced in May 2018.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Does not deal with the Dangerous and Insanitary Building policy in full now and defers amendments until 2018.
Option 2: Change the phasing of the works required and deal with the Earthquake prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy in full, then undertake work on priority buildings as a separate exercise.
Advantages	· Undertake the changes to the current Earthquake prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy in full, including special consultative procedure for the review and amendments in late 2017.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Results in two separate special consultative procedures which will mean additional work for staff and elected members.

Martin Brown

Manager Building

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1823395 - Draft Changes to the Earthquake-prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy ⇩

Attachment 2: A1823406 - Extract of Building (Earthquake-prone buildings) Amendment Act 2016 sections 133AE to 133AG ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The report recommendation meets current and future needs of communities in contributing to safe use of buildings in relation to seismic events.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The content and recommendation of this report is consistent with Council’s Community Outcomes – “Our urban and rural environments are people friendly, well planned and sustainably managed” this report and the workflow created is aligned to ensuring areas are designed to be child, family and people friendly and safe.

3. Risk

To ensure that the Territorial Authority meets its statutory requirements under both the Building Act 2004 and the Building (Earthquake-prone buildings) Amendment Act 2016.

4. Financial impact

The new legislation will require time resources within the team to manage the transition and it’s resulting additional workflow and changes to 50 current notices. There are no specific additional costs expected in meeting the new requirements as these will be undertaken utilising existing resources.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance because it has potential to impact on private building owners as it may be determined that they own priority buildings. Therefore the following Special consultative procedures is required to be undertaken by the legislation.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No consultation with Māori has been undertaken.

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the delegated authority to recommend to Council any development or review of polices and strategies relating to these areas of responsibility.

Planning and Regulatory Committee

3 October 2017

REPORT R8275

Nelson Plan - Timelines to Draft Release and Notification

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider and approve proposed revised timelines relating to the draft release and subsequent notification of the Nelson Plan.

2. Summary

2.1 Council is currently reviewing and replacing its operative Regional Policy Statement (RPS) and resource management plans, with a plan – the Nelson Plan. Staff have been working to an indicative timeline agreed by Council in November 2016 (R6698). At that point, public notification was anticipated in January 2018.

2.2 Since November 2016, a number of significant changes have affected the indicative timeline. Amended project timelines are attached for consideration. The key dates are draft Plan release in August 2018 and public notification in May 2019.

2.3 A consequential revision of the progressive implementation programme for freshwater management is also required.

3. Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Nelson Plan - Timelines to Draft Release and Notification (R8275) and its attachments (A1821033 and A1821035); and

Approves the proposed timelines to draft release and notification of the Nelson Plan; and

Approves that consequential changes to the Progressive Implementation Programme for freshwater management will be made and the Ministry for the Environment informed.

4. Background

4.1 The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) requires Council to review the regional policy statement (RPS), regional plan and district plan every 10 years. The operative Regional Policy Statement (1997), Nelson Resource Management Plan (regional, coastal, and district plan provisions - 2006) and Air Quality Plan (a regional plan - 2008) are overdue for review. These documents will be replaced by the Whakamahere Whakatu Nelson Plan, which represents an integrated RPS, regional and district plan.

4.2 In preparing the Plan, the Planning Team’s capacity is supplemented by external consultants whose ongoing involvement has been secured and funded for the 2017-18 year. The development of the Plan is also reliant on input from other teams in Council; notably Infrastructure, GIS, Resource Consents and Compliance, and Communications. Points for input and necessary commitment levels continue to be signalled directly with those teams.

4.3 Considerable progress has been made in preparing the Nelson Plan. The development to date of the RPS component is outlined in R7279. Council workshops on draft regional and district plan provisions have been held with elected members from February – September 2017.

4.4 In November 2016, Council agreed the process and indicative timeframe for the Nelson Plan (R6698). At that time it was envisaged that Council workshops on draft content would run through from January to May 2017, community feedback on the provisions would be sought March to July, and the draft Plan would be compiled from September that year, with a target date of January 2018 for notification.

4.5 In February 2016, the Committee approved a revised Progressive Implementation Programme (PIP) for freshwater management, which is required by the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (R6960). To ensure integration, the PIP aligns with the Nelson Plan timelines.

5. Discussion

5.1 A detailed task identification and project planning exercise has now been completed. This paper highlights that a January 2018 milestone for notification is no longer achievable or preferred due to increased engagement expectations, national policy changes and a desire for enhanced quality control.

5.2 Public notification of the Nelson Plan is proposed to be delayed for the following reasons:

5.2.1 To enable elected members to meaningfully engage with Plan content, the workshop series was extended to September 2017 (from May 2017).

5.2.2 Delays in the Government’s release of an amended National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, and the new National Environmental Standard on Plantation Forestry. Until recently, staff have been unable to analyse their implications for our plans, including the need to effect transitional amendments to the operative Plan. Staff are still awaiting revised National Environmental Standards for Air Quality.

5.2.3 Amendments to the draft RPS and Nelson Plan approach are required to implement the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity.

5.2.4 The recent release of the Nelson Link Southern Investigation by NZTA will need to be considered in relation to significant issues, designations and relevant chapters. Officers are yet to engage with NZTA on possible amendments.

5.2.5 Recent amendments to the RMA relating to natural hazards, urban capacity and resource consent pathways need to be accounted for in Plan drafting.

5.2.6 Engagement with potentially affected landowners and stakeholders on draft designations and natural hazard, heritage, farm plan, biodiversity, infrastructure, freshwater and landscape provisions has needed to be more extensive than originally anticipated.

5.2.7 The development community seeks more in depth engagement on Council’s likely direction on the draft provisions. A series of workshops have been scheduled.

5.2.8 There has been a desire for greater quality control, including peer review, to ease the burden on elected members. Unitary plans are particularly complex and require careful integration. Even at a draft stage, the Plan must be of sufficient quality that it allows Plan users and interested parties to easily navigate the text and mapping, and focus on matters that are relevant to them and/or they support or are concerned about. To assure elected members that this is the case, robust and independent peer and legal reviews, content proofing, consent testing, cost benefit analysis and issues and options evaluation tasks have been identified, and are built into the timelines. Quality control processes have been programmed in parallel where they can be.

5.2.9 Iwi partners have engaged throughout the Plan’s development but have requested a three month period to review the draft Plan as a whole, in advance of the general public having the same opportunity. Other stakeholders, including Freshwater Working Groups, have expressed a similar interest.

5.2.10 Council is committed to making a draft version of the Plan available for public input, to increase buy-in and reduce the likelihood of opposition at notification. This approach is widely supported by stakeholders, including the development community. A ten week period for public engagement is recommended.

5.2.11 A delay in the development of the Government’s National Planning Standards has meant that additional time is required to ensure the Plan aligns sufficiently with the Standards.

5.2 Most of the additional tasks above necessitate points at which recommended changes to the Plan are brought to the full Council for advice or approval. This ensures all elected members are aware and supportive of the Plan as it moves through the process. Time has been allowed for these touch points to occur, as set out in Attachments 1 and 2.

5.3 An implication of extending the Nelson Plan timeline is that the review of the Land Development Manual (including its alignment with Tasman District Council) will proceed ahead of the Nelson Plan via a separate change to the operative Nelson Resource Management Plan next year. The Land Development Manual will later be referenced in the Nelson Plan.

Options

5.4 The proposed timelines to public release of the draft Plan (August 2018) and public notification (May 2019) are set out in Attachments 1 and 2, respectively.

5.5 If the timelines for the Nelson Plan are amended as proposed, then consequential changes will need to be made to the notified PIP for freshwater management and the Freshwater Working Groups’ terms of reference so that they remain aligned.

Option 1: Approve the proposed timelines set out in Attachments 1 and 2
Advantages	· Meets iwi expectations for input of the draft Plan · Meets Council’s commitment to releasing a draft Plan for input · Ensures the Plan is fit for purpose for draft release and notification · Increases likelihood of broad support and buy-on the Plan (likely measured in volume of submissions in support, reduced length of hearings, lower prospect of appeals and less pressure for Plan changes) · Bolsters Council’s reputation for engagement
Risks and Disadvantages	· Increases the timeline to notification
Option 2: Continue with the current timeframe for notification (January 2018)
Advantages	· Minimises the timeline to notification and to subsequent hearings and Plan adoption
Risks and Disadvantages	· Would not meet iwi engagement requirements for input on the draft Plan; may result in a judicial challenge · Would not meet Council’s commitment to release a draft Plan for public input · Plan would not be fit for purpose for draft release and notification · Increased likelihood of opposition to notified Plan (likely measured in volume of submissions in opposition, length of hearings, prospect of appeals and pressure for Plan changes) · Potential damage to Council’s reputation

6. Conclusion

6.1 Considerable progress has been made in developing the Plan to date. The Council’s collaborative approach has ensured that elected members, iwi and stakeholders have actively participated in developing the Plan. The proposed timeframes outlined in Attachments 1 and 2 and covered by Option 1 will ensure that this successful approach will continue, as the Plan moves towards draft release and notification.

Mark Leggett

Team Leader Planning

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1821033 - Nelson Plan Timeline to Public Release of Draft ⇩

Attachment 2: A1821035 - Nelson Plan Timeline to Notification ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The proposed timelines will ensure that the community is able to provide meaningful input into the development of the Nelson Plan, which is one of the key means by which the Council performs its regulatory functions. That input will ensure the Plan represents the most cost effective means of achieving the purpose of the Local Government Act.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The proposed timeframe is consistent with Council policy including annual plan and long term plan requirements, and supports the following community outcome: Our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, a regional perspective, and community engagement.

3. Risk

The proposed timelines are based on a detailed task identification and project planning exercise, which should ensure that they will be met.

4. Financial impact

At this stage, it is not anticipated that the proposed timelines will have a significant impact on the Council’s budget, although the desire for peer and legal review will add costs. The proposed timelines may have a longer term benefit in reducing hearing and appeal costs associated with the Plan.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance because the proposed timelines provide for additional input from the community.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Members of Council’s Iwi Working Group have sought the provision of a three month period for input on the Plan – this is catered for in the proposed timeline.

7. Delegations

The Committee has the ability to consider the timeframe and process for the Nelson Plan.

Planning and Regulatory Committee

3 October 2017

REPORT R8276

Draft Environment Activity Management Plan 2018-28

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve the Draft Environment Activity Management Plan (AMP) 2018-2028.

2. Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Draft Environment Activity Management Plan 2018-28 (R8276) and its attachment (A1787292).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

3. Background

3.1 The 2018-2028 Environment Activity Management Plan (AMP) is the second AMP covering the Environment portfolio to be presented to Council. The original Environment AMP in 2015 solely focussed on the Planning, Resource Consents, and Environmental Programmes activities of Council. This plan now brings together the Planning, Consents and Compliance, Building, City Development, and Science and Environment activities under one plan for the first time.

3.2 The general approach for the AMP was workshopped with the Planning and Regulatory Committee on 25 May 2017.

4. Discussion

4.1 Draft AMPs are prepared and approved by Council to inform development of the Long Term Plan 2018-2028. Following consultation on the Long Term Plan and subsequent decisions, AMPs will be updated to align with the adopted Long Term Plan. The Final updated Plans will be brought back to Council early in 2018 for adoption.

4.2 Nelson is a growing city with significant social, economic, and environmental assets. To accommodate growth and maintain these assets we need to grow and develop in a way that supports environmental outcomes such as clean air and water, enhanced biodiversity and landscapes, and healthy and productive coastal and marine areas. Our built environment also needs to respect our heritage and adapt to natural hazards.

4.3 The following are the focus areas for the Environment AMP:

· Biodiversity

· Freshwater

· City Development

· Natural Hazards

· Coastal and Marine

· Biosecurity

4.4 The focus areas for the Environment AMP respond to legislative requirements and community expectations.

4.5 It is important to note that this draft AMP may undergo some change in the next six months as different key needs and priorities are identified through the Long Term Plan consultation and Levels of Service are refined to align with national and regional policy changes.

4.6 Supporting the delivery of the Levels of Service will be a request for increased budget and staff resource. At this stage the requests are:

(a) 4 additional staff resources in the Strategy and Environment Group. A staff resource to manage bylaws; and 3 additional staff to address regional council functions. Staff resources are yet to be discussed within the Senior Leadership Team to confirm priorities across the organisation and will be subject to change.

(b) Ongoing funding for 3 potentially additional staff resources in the Resource Consents and Building Teams which are currently going through an approval process with the Senior Leadership Team.

(c) Ongoing funding for one staff member in the City Development Team which has previously been approved by the Senior Leadership Team.

(d) Financial resourcing (these amounts have been totalled and for a more detailed breakdown refer to section 5 of the Attachment):

(i) Building = $55k for system support for Go-Shift and IANZ accreditation;

(ii) Warmer Healthier Homes = $100k per annum to continue home insulation beyond 2017/18.

(iii) Nelson Plan = $250k in 18/19 for Hearing costs and $30k per annum for years 2 to 10 for ongoing EPlan maintenance.

(iv) City Development = $200k per annum for National Policy Statement Urban Development work.

(v) Water quality = $200k per annum to continue with the Project Maitai/Mahitahi work in that catchment and across the other catchments in Nelson.

(vi) Monitoring = $100k permitted activity monitoring e.g. forestry; $20k per annum for license requirements for LAWA – Land and Water Aotearoa; $100k for water monitoring equipment and an ongoing $50k per annum for data calibration; $40K for years 1 to 3 for air quality equipment and $15k every second year for air quality modelling.

4.7 There is a discussion that has commenced regarding City Centre development and strategy work. This has not yet been costed.

4.8 A development timeline for the AMP will be discussed at the meeting.

Options

4.9 Council can decide to approve the draft Environment AMP to inform the Long Term Plan 2018-2028, make changes to the draft before approving, or not approve the draft.

5. Conclusion

5.1 It is recommended that the Committee seek Council approval of the draft AMP to inform the Long Term Plan.

Matt Heale

Manager Environment

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1787292 - Draft Environment AMP 2018-2028 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This decision allows Council to set its strategic direction for its support and contribution to the Environment activity for the benefit of Nelson.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

This decision aligns with Council’s community Outcomes:

· Nelson’s unique natural environment is healthy and protected

· Nelson’s urban and rural environments are people friendly, well planned and sustainably managed.

· Nelson’s infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs

· Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive, and resilient.

· Nelson’s communities have opportunities to celebrate and explore their heritage, identity and creativity.

· Nelson’s communities have access to a range of social, educational and recreational facilities and activities

· The Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, a regional perspective, and community engagement

And Nelson 2060 goals:

· Goal 1 – We support and encourage leaders across our community;

· Goal 2 – We are all able to be involved in decisions;

· Goal 3 – Our natural environment – air, land, rivers and sea – is protected and healthy;

· Goal 4 – We produce more if our own food;

· Goal 5 – We are able to rapidly adapt to change;

· Goal 6 – We move from using fossil fuels to renewable energy sources;

· Goal 7 – Our economy thrives and contributes to a vibrant and sustainable Nelson;

· Goal 8 - Nelson is the centre of learning and practice in Kaitiakitanga and sustainable development;

· Goal 9 – Everyone in our community has their essential needs met;

· Goal 10 – We reduce our consumption so that resources are shared more fairly.

This outcome will inform Council’s Long Term Plan 2018-2028

3. Risk

Approving the Environment AMP in unlikely to result in adverse consequences. Potential risks of the activity have been identified in the draft AMP.

4. Financial impact

The draft Environment AMP sets out the budget for the Long Term Plan. The recommended level of funding seeks to increase previous levels set in the LTP.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance because the draft Environment AMP will set direction for the Long Term Plan. No specific engagement on the AMP will be undertaken as this will form part of the engagement on the Long Term Plan. The key focus areas in the AMP have been informed by a range of previous community engagement.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Maori have not specifically been consulted with regards to this report.

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the responsibility for considering a range of environmental and regulatory functions covered by the Environment AMP. The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the power to make a recommendation to Council on this matter.

Planning and Regulatory Committee

3 October 2017

REPORT R7279

Nelson Plan - Draft Regional Policy Statement

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider the feedback on the Draft Regional Policy Statement (RPS) and provide direction on the matters that need to be considered as the RPS and Nelson Plan are developed and refined throughout 2018.

2. Summary

2.1 Council released the Draft RPS for feedback in May/June 2016. Feedback was received from approximately 50 groups and individuals resulting in some 800 individual points of feedback. Further feedback was also sought from the Iwi Working Group in November 2016. Council officers provided a general overview of this feedback at Council workshops on 22 November and 1 December 2016 and to the Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting on 23 February 2017.

2.2 A Planning peer review of the Draft RPS has been undertaken.

3. Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Nelson Plan - Draft Regional Policy Statement (R7279) and its attachments (A1743457, A1829598, and A1743456); and

Agrees that the Nelson Plan Draft Regional Policy Statement will incorporate the changes identified in report R7279 and its attachment (A1829598); and

4. Background

4.1 The Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991 requires Council to review the regional policy statement, regional plan and district plan every 10 years. The current Regional Policy Statement (1997), Air Plan (2008) and Nelson Resource Management Plan (regional, coastal, and district plan 2006) are overdue for review.

4.2 In late 2014 Council decided that it would undertake an integrated review of Nelson’s resource management plans called the Whakamahere Whakatu Nelson Plan. Officers have been undertaking technical work, working in partnership with iwi and engaging with a range of key stakeholders on the Nelson Plan.

4.3 Throughout 2015 officers ran a series of workshops with Council and Iwi to define Nelson’s significant resource management issues and how to respond to those issues - strategic outcomes. Community feedback was sought in November 2015 that informed the development of the Draft RPS http://nelson.govt.nz/feedback-overview-nrmp

4.4 In early 2016 Council workshopped the Draft Regional Policy Statement ahead of seeking community and stakeholder feedback in May/June. A summary of the feedback was provided to Councillors in September 2016 and can be found at http://nelson.govt.nz/rps-feedback

4.5 Officers then considered the feedback, briefed the new Council on the draft RPS and workshopped general responses to that feedback with councillors on 22 November and 1 December 2016.

4.6 An overview of the Nelson Plan process and feedback on the Draft RPS was reported to the 23 February 2017 Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting. The Committee resolved that the next iteration of the Draft Regional Policy Statement will be reported following the completion of a planning peer review. The report also noted that the Draft RPS will remain as a working draft throughout 2017 as the wider Nelson Plan is developed to ensure that the RPS and wider Nelson Plan are fully integrated.

4.7 The report also indicated that the following feedback would be considered in the next report:

· Public feedback with officer recommendations

· Proposed officer changes following further advice

· Officer recommendations on Council workshop feedback

4.8 A planning peer review of the Draft RPS has now been completed and is discussed below.

5. Discussion

Feedback and Recommendations

Wide range of feedback received on the draft RPS

5.1 The RPS sets the strategic direction for the remainder of the Nelson Plan, which contain the regional, district and coastal provisions.

5.2 Feedback was received from approximately 50 groups and individuals including Iwi, Grey Power, Victory Community Centre, Federated Farmers, Friends of the Nelson Haven, Nelson Environment Centre, Brook Sanctuary, Southern Inshore fisheries, Forest and Bird, and Nelson Forests.

5.3 A number of National/government agencies also provided feedback including New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), Transpower, NZ Defence Force, Tasman District Council, Nelson Marlborough District Health Board, and Heritage NZ.

5.4 Overall there were approximately 800 individual pieces of feedback.

5.5 Feedback on the draft RPS was provided by Councillors at the 22 November and 1 December 2016 workshops. A summary of this feedback is attached at Attachment 1(A1743457).

5.6 Council officers have arranged for the Draft RPS and Nelson Plan to have a planning peer review. A later legal review will also occur as the wider Nelson Plan is in draft form. In summary the Planning peer review recommendations of the Draft RPS identified the need to:

· Ensure that regionally significant resource management issues and objectives are regionally significant and improve how they are framed.

· Include a s32 (cost benefit analysis) to capture the rationale for the policy approach in the Draft RPS.

· Ensure alignment from issues right through to the methods and show the link between RPS and District and Regional Plan objectives, policies, and rules when the District Plan is developed.

· Address overlapping objectives such as natural character in the amenity chapter and landscape chapter.

· Include specific methods for addressing cross boundary issues with TDC staff and update issues and other plan content with relevant RMA and National Policy Statement (NPS) provisions.

· Streamline methods to make sure they have a regional focus and where they do not relegate them to the District/Regional Plan level.

· Make methods action focussed and measureable.

· Clarify how Te Taiao values are going to be considered by RPS and the District and Regional Plan.

Officer Recommendations generally align with feedback

5.7 A track change version of the Draft RPS is attached at Attachment 2 (A1829598). This indicates changes that have been recommended by officers and whether they are in response to public feedback, feedback from Council workshops, Officer feedback, or feedback resulting from the Planning Peer review.

5.8 A summary of officer recommendations, is provided below. These changes generally align with feedback received on the Draft RPS.

General Recommendations highlight the need for amendments to improve integration and keep pace with national policy change

5.9 Feedback from the general public was generally supportive and largely sought minor changes to text. Some feedback also sought changes that were more appropriate at the District Plan level and some gaps were identified in the Draft RPS.

5.10 Officers have recommended that minor text changes are generally supported and that District Plan matters will be further considered at the rule drafting stage of the Nelson Plan.

5.11 The following recommendations are made in relation to the gaps identified by the general public:

· The Draft RPS is not changed to clarify Councils role or the need to take a precautionary approach as this is provided for in legislation or caselaw (see RMA (s84) and LGA (s39)).

· A climate change chapter has not been added to the Draft RPS as the effects of climate change are a cross cutting issue rather than a chapter specific issue. Feedback has also sought that the causes of climate change are addressed in the Draft RPS. The RMA has a narrower focus than this as it directs Councils to have particular regard to the effects of climate change (RMA s7(i))and limits Councils ability to control discharges unless an National Environmental Standard allows this (RMA s70A&B).

· The economic benefit of fisheries and the impact that landuse activities have on Nelson’s fisheries resource should be acknowledged in the Draft RPS.

· The role of specific areas, such as the importance of industrial areas, medical facilities, future residential areas, and the role of different centres, is recognised in the Draft RPS.

5.12 The Planning peer review has highlighted the need for a number of general issues that need to be addressed. The following changes are recommended:

· The RPS is streamlined once the regional and district plan objectives, policies, and rules are developed.

· In order to keep the Nelson Plan concise it is not proposed to repeat issues, methods, anticipated environmental results or principal reasons at the Regional and District Plan level. While Council has the option to include these matters these are not mandatory under the RMA. It is considered in Nelson’s case these do not need to be repeated as all regional and district plan matters broadly stem from those issues identified at the RPS level.

· Improvements will be made to frame issues as issues rather than outcomes. Council was initially keen to frame issues as outcomes to help tell the story about what Council is trying to achieve up front. The vision section of the plan in the introduction has now been amended to do this so that issues throughout the document can be re-written as regionally significant resource management issues. These issues have been tested using operative RPS criteria and have been through extensive council workshops and community engagement. Further explanation about how the issues were identified is included in section 1.6 of the Introduction chapter and will be comprehensively outlined in the s32 cost benefit analysis that sits behind the Nelson Plan. Issues will be reframed throughout 2017 as the Council workshops the Nelson Plan rules to ensure vertical alignment between the RPS Issues and the rest of the Nelson Plan.

· The Draft RPS will be re-written to ensure that there is alignment right from issue to methods and provisions align with relevant sections of the RMA and National policy guidance and are framed correctly. Methods have been reviewed to ensure they are action focussed and measureable, and these will be further streamlined as the Nelson Plan develops.

· No substantial changes are recommended as Cross boundary issues have been agreed with TDC and MDC planning officers.

· Draft RPS objectives, policies, and methods will be reviewed as the rest of the Nelson Plan is developed so that vertical alignment can be achieved once the rules are drafted. This is one of the reasons why the Draft RPS is proposed to stay as a working draft until the rest of the Nelson Plan is developed in a draft form.

· Officers are currently refining a RMA s32 cost benefit analysis for the Draft RPS and this will be available when the Draft Nelson Plan is released for feedback. While the RMA only requires this at notification it is best practice to assess options as plan provisions are considered.

· Te Taio (environment) values will be considered at the regional and district plan level as these documents need to give effect to the integrated RPS, which needs to be read as a whole. This is why the regulatory methods section of the Iwi chapter indicates that assessment against the Aoturoa framework (which addresses the implementation of Maori traditional understanding of Te Taiao with resource management processes) is required. Relevant policies have been amended to clarify this.

5.13 A number of chapter specific changes have been sought via feedback. Officers have also recommended a number of additional changes as a result of further technical work that has been undertaken, national policy changes that have been signalled, and more recent discussions with key stakeholders such as Freshwater Working Groups and Iwi stakeholders. Councillors were briefed on these recommended changes at the 22 November and 1 December workshops. A summary of these changes was reported at the 23 February 2017 Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting and are attached at Attachment 3 (A1743456).

5.14 A summary of all officer recommendations, by chapter, is provided below. The summary also identifies whether the recommendation results from workshop, community, officer or peer review feedback.

Chapter by Chapter Recommendations

Introduction

· Outline how significant resource management issues were identified.

· The role of Nelson 2060 and Councils strategic outcomes have been clarified and the vision updated accordingly. (Workshop, Community, Peer review).

· Strategic outcomes have been altered to highlight the importance of the Central City (Workshop).

· Cross boundary issues highlight the role of the Nelson Regional Development Agency and emphasise the importance of economic development (Workshop).

· The vision emphasises the importance of energy efficient housing and key transport links (Workshop).

· Updating timelines for Nelson Plan and release of National Environmental Standard for Air Quality (officers).

Chapter 1 (Tangata Whenua Iwi of Whakatu)

· Additional interpretation has been added to Appendix 1 along with clarifying that Council is still working with Iwi to identify “places of significance” (Workshop, Community).

· Changes to Objective Rima and Policy Wha to clarify iwi participation (Community).

· Alter Policy Rua to include places of significance to Maori and access to natural resources used for customary purposes (Community,Workshop).

· Alter Policy Rima to clarify Te Aoturoa Framework (peer review).

· Amend methods to include monitoring programmes and iwi engagement and training needs (Community, Peer review).

· Add Anticipated Environmental Result about tikanga Maori (Community).

Chapter 2 (Infrastructure and Energy)

· Highlight the positive effects that can be generated by infrastructure and the importance of national infrastructure (Community).

· Update policies (2.9), methods and Anticipate Environmental Results to reflect National Policy Statement Urban Development Capacity (Community, Officers).

· Broaden Policy 2.1 to include wider transport and healthcare facilities (community).

· Amend Policy 2.2 to align better with RMA and other chapters of the RPS (community, Peer review).

· Emphasise that some infrastructure cannot be avoided in high risk hazard areas in policy 2.4 (community).

· Include discussion that outlines waste wood is a renewable energy resource and Ultra Low Emission Burners also new technology for reducing emissions (workshop).

· Emphasise the link between funding and infrastructure rollout (officer).

Chapter 3 (Character and Amenity)

· Emphasise the need for greater urban design/amenity guidance in plan, especially in centres and note that shading can generate adverse amenity effects (workshop, community).

· Re-order policies 3.2 and 3.3 to clarify that essential amenity values should be identified first so that development in centres can reflect these values (peer review).

· Clarify, in policies 3.5 and 3.7, how adverse amenity effects will be addressed in the Industrial and Rural zones (Peer review, workshop, community).

· Combine Policy 3.9 and 3.10 (notable trees) to improve explanation of what is to be protected and how it will be identified (peer review).

Chapter 4 (Social and Economic Wellbeing)

· Re-order issues (Officers).

· Emphasise the importance of the coastal and marine environment (community).

· Remove reference to 3-4 storeys at Stoke/Tahuna, include the impact tourism activities has on housing supply , include provision for second dwellings, and discuss the role of Haven, Marina, and Saxton in centres hierarchy (workshop).

· Clarify the role of existing commercial activities in Industrial zones (community).

· better reflect the National Policy Statement Urban Development Capacity requirements to monitor residential business and land supply and other factors (officer, community).

· Clarify the role of Farm Plans and Large Property Plans in Policy 4.9 (Community)

· Clarify what sensitive activities are in Policy 4.11 and 4.12 (community).

Chapter 5 (Natural Hazards)

· Changes to issues to clarify the nature and extent of natural hazards (Community).

· Policy 5.1 - Clarify what is meant by a risk based approach (Community).

· Alter Policy 5.2 to allow activities in high risk areas where comprehensive hazard management plans are in place and avoidance is impractical (officer).

· Clarification (Policy 5.4) that areas of coastal hazard need to be identified before we can develop an appropriate land management approach (officer).

· Clarify the flood event to be used for Building and Subdivision respectively in Anticipated Environmental Results(officer).

Chapter 6 (Heritage)

· Reframe provisions to better reflect wording of the RMA and national guidance (peer review, Community, Iwi).

· consider amenity values alongside heritage values, and include building consent remission for strengthening heritage buildings as a method(workshop).

Chapter 7 (Landscape)

· Clarify that the chapter also includes Coastal Natural Character values and how these values will be identified (community)

· Clarify the focus on skylines (workshop, Community, Officer).

· Include reference in explanations to issue statements, policies and anticipated environmental results to areas exhibiting high and very high landscape and natural character values in the coastal environment, together with the associative and cultural values of the Maitai (Mahitahi) Valley ( Community, officer).

Chapter 8 (Biodiversity)

· Clarify that freshwater and marine biodiversity matters are addressed elsewhere, Genetically Modified Organisms regulation to be left to Environmental Protection Agency, acknowledge and recognise the role of voluntary work and community groups in management of biodiversity, and confirm mapping Significant Natural Areas is the best approach due to added certainty (workshop, Community).

· Relocation of policy reference to biodiversity corridor and riparian enhancement and removal of reference in Methods section to using narrative descriptions of acutely or chronically threatened ecosystems (in preference to mapping these areas)(officer).

· Highlight the role of biodiversity corridors and riparian areas (community).

· Include reference to biodiversity offsets (peer review).

Chapter 9 (Land)

· Ensure property plans address run-off from steep and impervious land and recognise baseline water quality levels (policy 9.1)(workshop).

· Recognise impacts on coastal, freshwater, and iwi values (community).

Chapter 10 (Coastal)

· Include more discussion of Tasman Bay State of the Environment (Issue 10.4), Include a map of the Coastal Marine Area and include the Marine reserve (workshop, community).

· Removal of introductory text as this is duplicated elsewhere (officer).

· Removal of off-setting policy provision (officer).

· Highlight the need to meet marine water quality standards in Policy 10.4 (officer).

· Recognise the social and economic importance of the marine environment and the fishing industry (Community, Workshop).

· Highlight the importance of access to the coast (Workshop).

Chapter 11 (Freshwater)

· Removal of introductory text but include in Issue 11.1 and include a cost benefit assessment to assess swimmable/wadable values as the Nelson Plan develops (workshop).

· Include a reference to investigating rating for water use as a method and add measuring ground water take rates and quality changes as an Anticipated Environmental Result (officer).

· Emphasise the cross boundary nature of water management (Community).

· Include policy for over allocation (community).

· There is a need to comprehensively redraft this chapter following Freshwater Management Group and Iwi input along with the additional technical work that has been completed since this chapter was originally drafted (officers).

Chapter 12 (Air)

· Updating timelines for Nelson Plan and release of National Environmental Standard for Air Quality (officers).

· “Significant” adverse impact on health will be better explained once the latest NES is released(workshop).

City Vision

5.15 The Council has recently been working on developing a City Vision that will guide Council policy. It is recommended that the City Vision is incorporated into the Draft RPS once it has been adopted by Council.

6. Options

6.1 The options for management of the Draft RPS are outlined in the table below.

Option 1: Keep RPS as working draft until Nelson Plan developed
Advantages	· Allows greater time for engagement · Would deliver an integrated Nelson Plan to ensure rules and strategy align · Ensures RPS is consistent with National Policy being developed in 2017 · Allows for comprehensive legal and peer review
Risks and Disadvantages	· Strategic direction is not set and would be subject to change
Option 2: Adopt RPS as final Draft
Advantages	· Plan drafters would have confidence that strategic direction will not change and can draft Plan content accordingly
Risks and Disadvantages	· Less robust planning document opening up greater possibility of challenge · Less time for engagement on RPS · National Policy Changes cannot be considered · Limited peer and legal review

Option 1 Recommended - Keep RPS as a working draft until Nelson Plan is developed

6.2 It is recommended that the Draft RPS remains as a working draft so that changes can be made to the RPS as the Nelson Plan is developed. This will allow the Council and community to have further input to the Draft Nelson Plan as a whole in mid 2018. Keeping the RPS draft will also allow officers to consider how further technical work, needed to develop rules, might affect the overall strategic direction provided by the RPS.

6.3 There are also some parts of the RPS that cannot be finalised until further national policy guidance is provided throughout 2017, in particular the National Environmental Standard (NES) - Air Quality, the NES - Plantation Forestry, the national plan standard, and the National Policy Statement – Urban Development Capacity (in terms of whether Nelson/Richmond is a high growth area), amendments to the National Policy Statement Freshwater Management, and anticipated guidance on hazard risk and climate change.

6.4 The recent (September 2017) release of the Nelson Southern Link Investigation by NZTA will need to be considered in relation to significant issues and relevant chapters. Officers are yet to engage with NZTA on the release of this report.

6.5 Officers have also commenced further community engagement on freshwater, biodiversity, landscape, hazards, and heritage that will usefully inform Draft RPS provisions. For example Draft RPS freshwater provisions are waiting for community groups to finalise values, objectives, and limits.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The Draft RPS has now been through initial community engagement, Council workshops, and a planning peer review. Officers have recommended changes to the Draft RPS to better align with the purpose of the RMA and national policy guidance, and address the issues raised by the community and the peer review to date. It is appropriate to make some initial changes to the Draft RPS as a working draft while the rest of the Nelson Plan develops. This will ensure ongoing integration and to keep pace with national legislative and policy changes.

Matt Heale

Manager Environment

Attachments

Attachment 1: Nelson Plan Summary of Changes to draft RPS sought at Council workshops nov dec 2016 ⇩

Attachment 2: Draft Regional Policy Statement October 2017 (Circulated separately) ⇨

Attachment 3: Nelson Plan Summary of Officer recomendation to Draft RPS May 2017 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The preparation of the Draft RPS and wider Nelson Plan meets the Council obligations under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). It is considered that this approach is the most efficient way to achieve the purpose of the Local Government Act.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Draft RPS process aligns with the delivery of the Council’s regulatory functions under the RMA, the Long Term Plan community outcome ‘our urban and rural environments are people-friendly, well planned and sustainably managed’ and the Nelson 2060 goals of ‘we are all able to be involved in decisions’ and ‘our natural environment – air, land, rivers and sea – is protected and healthy’.

3. Risk

To be successful as a planning document, the RPS and the wider Nelson Plan need to be well integrated and free of any conflicting or contradictory policy. Keeping the RPS draft while the wider Plan is developed will ensure that this objective is achieved, and reduce the potential for legal challenge and disintegrated consent decisions in the future.

4. Financial impact

There are no direct costs associated with keeping the RPS in draft while the wider Nelson Plan is developed.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance because collectively the RPS and Nelson Plan will establish a planning framework for 10 to 20 years. It is therefore of considerable interest to residents, ratepayers, landowners, occupiers, business interests, resource users, other stakeholders and iwi alike. The extent to which the RPS and Nelson Plan are well-integrated will have a bearing on how the entire Plan is received by those parties.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

The Iwi Working Group (IWG) established by Council and representing Te Tau Ihu has guided the development of the draft RPS to date. IWG representatives have indicated a preference for reviewing the combined draft RPS and Nelson Plan as a whole, so that they are able to provide meaningful feedback. Keeping the RPS in draft will assist in this.

Wider Maori will be engaged through future consultation.

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the responsibility for considering resource management issues and to perform all functions, powers and duties relating to the areas of responsibility conferred on Council by relevant legislation (for example in this instance the RMA 1991). The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the power to decide this matter.